at the same time. we have to deal with our own economy and our fiscal situation, that is a given, because that is the source of our strength and our capacity. but we also have to be smart about making the right investments in diplomacy and development to try to solve problems and prevent them. so, you know, i have outlined what should be a no-brainer, let us have the permission to take money we already have, we are not asking for more money and put it to work where the arb told us to do, and then let's look at the budget as we move forward. now se sequestration will be very damaging to the state department, and usaid if it does come to pass, because it throws the baby out with the bath. are there programs that we could reduce, make more efficient? yes, that is part of what i've been trying to do is to push

that forward, and that's what the qddr process was about. but there are also a lot of very essential programs first an secr personnel in dangerous places that we can't afford to cut more of. and so i hope we get the transfer authority and then have a sensible budget discussion going forward. >> thank you. senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman, madam secretary. i want to thank you for your incredible commitment to the country, as first lady and member of this body as and secretary of state. as a doctor i have seen you work yourself to exhaustion, not for your own benefit but for the benefit of the people in this country and the country is grateful for that. i like you agree that we need to make sure this, something like this never happens again. and i have kind of looked at it the challenger explosion where we lost those seven astronauts because of an o-ring and problems there. we didn't see it coming and

could have seen it coming and should have seen it coming. as you said, you never saw the security requests. vice president biden and the presidential debate said no one tolls us. i mean, the concern is we should have been seeing these sorts of things. there were the attacks on the british ambassador. there were the attacks on the red cross they pulled out of benghazi. there were attacks on the consulate itself. yet we had no evacuation plan established in spite of the fact that months earlier in libya we had i think to get an italian ferryboat to get people out who were in danger who were diplomats at the time. so those are the concerns. we want to make sure there is security for our ambassadors which gets to the issue, we talk about what happened on the talk shows. you said the best information what was best available at the time. the american people heard, we had a substantial

security presence. they heard, we obviously did have a strong security presence. they heard, obviously there was a significant security presence. and i just believe that wasn't the case. and i would ask you today, if you believe that we had a significant, substantial and strong security presence in libya at that time? because we want that for all of our ambassadors. >> right, well, senator, we had a security presence that was mutually reinforced with the annex. we had had as you rightly point out and others before you, previous incidents not only against our compound but against the british, the red cross and others. and what we, you know, what we have accepted from the arb recommendation, even though there was a back and

forth in the cables and discussions, you need 3ds agent or you need five? we had five there but we had an unprecedented attack as one of the former rsoes, regional security officers, testified. an attack that truly was not expected on though on that night we had the requisite number of ds agents. we can get mired in the back and forth but i believe we will be doing more to help prevent future tragedies and attacks if we take the arb recommendations because after all they had no stake in this debate one way or the other. they just wanted to look at the facts which they did an excellent job doing and tell all of us what we needed to do. that's what i think our highest responsibility is. >> thank you, madam secretary. thinking about future attacks and trying to

prevent those on september 12th, the president vowed, to quote, bring to justice killers who attacked our people in benghazi. so we asked the question and senator risch talked about were the people that perpetrated the recent attacks in algeria, were they part of this, or were they made perhaps emboldened because no one as yet paid a penalty for the attack on our facility in benghazi and how can we make sure people are actually brought to justice there? >> well i believe, well, i know that the fbi has been briefing some committees. i assume members of staff of this committee are included. i don't know that but i would assume, about the progress of their investigation. i got the most recent update from the director just a few days ago when he returned from north africa. they are following some very promising leads, and putting together cases. they with have to speak to you directly about that in a classified setting but you

think what they are trying to determine is how best to respond and i think what the president clearly said is, we will respond. and we will bring those to justice and i don't think anybody should doubt this president at his word. we have some very good examples of that. it may take time but he does not in any way divert attention from the goal of bringing them to justice. >> thank you, madam secretary. the president also said al qaeda has been decimated. and in light of the recent terrorist activities that we continue to see in north africa, around the world, would you characterize that as al qaeda has been decimated? >> well, core al qaeda certainly has been. i think you would hear the same from the intelligence community or dod. the work that has been done in afghanistan and the borders area between afghanistan, pakistan, certainly has taken out a

whole caught die ofdcadre of leadership. what we're seeing people who have migrated back to other parts of the world where they came from primarily who are in effect affiliates. part of the jihadist syndicate. some of them like al qaeda in the islamic maghreb use that name, others use different names but the fact is they are terrorists. they are extremes. they have designs on overthrowing existing government, even these new islamist governments of controlling territories of the so although there has been the decimation of core al qaeda in the afghanistan, pakistan region, we do have to contend with the wannabes and the affiliates going forward. >> thank you, madam. >> senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, madam secretary, for being here and it's great, great to see you today. you have been, i think, a

real dedicated public servant for this country and your travels around the world, as many have talked about it. the millions miles you've put on and all the countries you visited and i think you've been to many countries where they have never had a secretary of state. i've seen first-hand when i've been to many of these countries the difference it makes to have you there on the ground. so i first of all just want to thank you for that and i know it does take a toll but you are incredibly dedicated to that. secondly, it's great to see you here in good health, smiling and engaging with all of us. and i want to add to the list people, senators going down the line, talked about some of your accomplishments. i know previously i talked to you about cook stoves, which i know has been one of

your initiatives. and it's once again an example of picking something where people around the world, who are living on a dollar or two-a-day, if you put in a technology like a, up-to-dated cook stove, you can make a big difference on their health and in the health of their children, and you can make a big difference on the environment. so i would add that to the list that has been given here today of very thoughtful policy making on your part. one of the findings the board made in its report and i'm quoting here, the total elimination of risk is a nonstarter for you u.s. diplomacy, given the need for the u.s. government to be present in places where stability and security are often most profoundly looking and host governments support is sometimes minimal to nonexistent. and i'm ending the quote there. and this report really, as

you know, madam secretary, underscores the difficulty in finding the right balance between engagement and security. and i fully support, as you have asked here and you have made the point to our committee, the idea that we should reprogram this 1.4 billion, get our act together and respond to the recommendations. but my question here revolves around these high-risk posts. i think the term you've used is, having 20 of them. is this how many there are? how many high-risk posts we have around the world? >> well, it is a sliding scale. there's very high, and there is high. i mean it's a constantly evolving threat environment. >> give us a little bit after range? very high and -- >> yeah. i would like to give you that in a classified document because i don't think it helps us to point

out the ones that we think are most at risk and then the ones that would be perhaps in a secondary category but i think it is fair to say, senator, we operate in pakistan. we operate in iraq, in afghanistan, in yemen. we operate in places where we know that our facilities are being surveiled for potential attacks. where we have a steady intel stream of plotting against us. we know that. and we make the decision, which is a difficult decision, as to whether or not that mission continues. and i have to say that we really rely on our security professionals to implement the protocols and the procedures. and i have to say, they do a tremendous job. the vast majority of the cases i could give you a long list of attacks averted,

of assassinations stopped, of the kind of daily effort that our diplomatic security professionals are engaged in. so i have a lot of confidence in them but we're going to do what we can to make sure that they get the support within our bureaucracy that they deserve out on the ground protecting our diplomats. >> and, and i know i want to obey the time limits here because you need to do move over to the house and others, be you could answer this one for the record. does it, does it make sense that in some of these high-risk areas that we consolidate those particular areas with more secure areas and then be able to, be in a situation where our personnel would be safer? and i'm not asking you really to answer that now. my time has run out and i want others to be a able to question. but if you could give us an

answer for the record. >> i will do that and i will say, senator, one of the recommendations out of the east africa arb was to do that and that is done, again in the vast majority of cases wherever it's possible to do what is called colocate but we're taking a look at that as well to see what more we can do. >> senator paul. >> thank you for appearing, secretary clinton and i'm glad to see your health is improving. one of the things that disappointed me about the original 9/11, no one was fired. we spent trillions of dollars. there were a lot of human errors. these are judgement errors. people that make judgement errors need to be replaced and fired and no longer in place to make these judgment calls. we have a review board. the review board finds 64 things to be changed. a lot of things are common sense. it was failure of leadership and four lives are lost because of this i'm glad you

accept responsibility. ultimately the with your leaving you accept culpability with the worst tragedy in the nine live have. had i been president at time you did not read the cables from benghazi, and cables from ambassador stevens i would have relieved of your post. the thing is we an can understand you're not reading every cable. i can understand you're not aware of the cable in ambassador vienna ha asks for $100,000 for electrical charging station. i can understand you're maybe not aware that your department spent $100,000 on three comedians who went to india on a promotional tour, called make chi, not war. i think you might be able to understand and might be aware of the 80 million spent on a consulate in sharif that will never be built. i think it is inexcusable that you did not know about this and you did not read these cables. i would think by anybody's estimation, libya has to have been one of the hottest of hot spots around the world. not to know of the request

for securities, really i think cost these people their lives. their lives could have been saved had someone been more available. had someone been avary of these things. more on top of the job. the thing is, i don't suspect you of bad motives. the review board said, well these people weren't will fully negligent. i don't think you were will fully. i don't suspect your motives wanting to serve your country. it was a failure leadership not to be involved. a failure of leadership not to know these things. so i think it is good that you're accepting responsibility because no one else is. and this is, there is certain amount of culpability to the worst tragedy since 9/11. and i'm glad you're accepting this. now my question is, is the u.s. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow, transferring weapons to turkey out of libya? >> to turkey? i will have to take that question for the record.

nobody has ever raised that with me. >> it's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from libya and that they may have weapons, and what i would like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, turkey included? >> senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. i will see what information is available, and -- >> you're saying you don't know? >> i do not know. i don't have any information on that. and u, with respect to personnel, senator, first, that's why we have independent people who review the situation as we did with pickering and mullen arb, and all four individuals identified in the arb have been removed from their job. secondly, they have been placed on administrative leave while we step through the personnel process to determine the next steps.

third, both ambassador pickering and admiral mullen specifically highlighted the reason why this is complicated because under federal statute and regulations, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding of a breach of duty. the arb did not find these four individuals breached their duty. so i have submitted legislation to this committee, to the congress, to fix this problem so future arbs will not face this situation. >> but here's the problem. the review board has all these recommendations but there is one thing they failed to address and i think you failed to address and sets us up for another tragedy like this. they should have never been sent in there without a military guard. this should have been an embassy like in baghdad, in a war zone, and it should have been under military guard. significant military guard, defense department command. i don't think the state department is capable of being in the war zone, protecting these people. i still don't think that i think another tragedy could happen. i think another tragedy

could happen in another war zone around the world. i think someone needs to make an executive decision, someone needs to take leadership and with that leadership should be, that you shouldn't send them in with that marines. shouldn't them with marines to guard records, not people. shouldn't send them in with the same kind of ambassador or embassy staff that you have in paris. i think that is inexcusable. >> well, senator the reason i'm here today is to answer questions the best i can. i am the secretary of state. and the arb made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below. the administration has sent officials to the hill more than 30 times. we've given as much information. we've been as transparent as we can. obviously we will continue to brief you and others to answer any and all questions that you have about going

forward. the reason we put into effect an accountability review board is to take it out of the heat of politics and partisanship and accusations and to put it in the hands of people who have no stake in the outcome. the reason i said make it open, tell world, is because i believe in transparency. i believe in taking responsibility, and i have done so. and i hope that we're going to be able to see a good, working relationship between the state department and the committee going forward. >> thank you. senator murphy. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, secretary clinton, i approach this hearing with some degree of sadness. it is my first and, your last but, i am so appreciative of your service. you've done such credit to this nation and we will be sorry to see you go. we know you will continue to give us good counsel and

good advice in the coming years. i think if some people on this committee want to call the tragedy in benghazi the worst since 9/11, it misunderstands the nature of 4,000 americans, plus, lost over 10 years of war in iraq fought under false pretenses. it was fought under false pretenses but it was also fought i think because we had a misunderstanding of what we could do and what we could manage in that region, what was under our control. and i guess my question to you, secretary clinton, is about what our expectations are going forward in north africa? i think you referenced this in your opening remarks about actually what is under our control. one of the criticisms in the review board was that we didn't have a full understanding of this complicated set of allegiances between jihadist

groups that are shifting on an almost daily basis. i worry sometimes that when we do this retrospective hand-wringing over a tragedy like this, that we sometimes give the impression to the american people that, you know, we can no all, see all, and control all in a region, we certainly are just beginning to stand up to the kind of presence we may ultimately need and want. and so, i guess i present this as, as that open-ended question to you of the as we move forward and especially for new members of this committee who probably will be spending a lot more time on africa and north africa than this committee ever spent before, what are the expectations that we should set for the american public as to what we can control, what we can no and potentially what changes on the dip low matic -- diplomatic side we need to make to have a more solid footprint and relationship with neighbors there who may be willing to help us when it comes to intelligence and intervention with this very complicated landscape of

jihadist groups. >> senator, you will make a excellent member of this committee based on that question because it is a multipart question but raises really the heart of the challenge we face. we are in a new reality. we are trying to make sense of changes that nobody had predicted but which we're going to have to live with. i can't do tis in the time i have left here in the really important issues that you have highlighted but i think first and foremost let's be honest. let's be honest with ourselves. let's avoid turning everything into a political football. let's instead try to just say, look, this is unprecedented. we don't know what's going to happen in this new revolutionary environment across north africa and the middle east. but let's see what lessons we can learn from what

worked in the past. see what is applicable, and then let's bring people together who will really have the kind of open discussion that used to be the hallmark of this committee and of the senate. i have mean people used to have hearings where it wasn't to just have administration officials come up and, you know, ask the questions and go on from there but really to delve into what works and what doesn't work. bring in outside experts. let them debate in front of you. try to figure out what the best information going forward is. i mean, you know, over the last weeks, i pulled writings from, you know, what you would call very conservative and very liberal commentators who kind of reach the same conclusion about what we should be doing in this region. we have to approach it with humility but we've got some real assets if we deploy them right. and helping to rebuild security is essential. you know we did it in colombia. it took a decade.

we did it directly in colombia. we did it as a partner with others in somalia. and there are a lot of other examples all the way across the world. let's be smart and learn from what we've done in the past and see what can be transferred into the present and the future. and let's be honest in trying to assess to the best of our ability. i think with the new chairman and new ranking member from my conversations with both of them, i think this committee could play such an essential role in trying to answer your questions, and put forth a policy that wouldn't go lurching from administration to administration, but would be steady one like we did with colombia. like we did with the cold war. let's be smart about this. we have more assets than anybody in the world. but i think we've gotten a little bit, you know, off track, in trying to figure out how best it utilize them. >> thank you.

senator? >> madam secretary, i also regret our overlap will be so brief. i think the country is at its strongest when we balance military strength with diplomatic strength, economic strength and strength of our moral example. and i can't think of a person that exemplifies that balance in a public service career as well as you do and i appreciate that. a few questions, detailed questions that trouble me. in the unclassified version of the arb, there's a comment, a brief one. in december 2011, the undersecretary for management approved a one-year continuation of the u.s. special mission in benghazi which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the libyan government. why wasn't this special mission notified to the libyan government? is that a common practice? did the lack of the notification have any connection with the weak libyan governmental response on the 11th?

and are there any changes in connection with the arb recommendations to the idea of special missions that are not notified formally to their host governments? >> well, senator, congratulations to you as well. and welcome to this committee. the united states notified to the libyan government the specific names of people who were serving in libya in both tripoli and in benghazi. that in no way affected the legal obligation of libya under the hague, under the vienna convention. the problem as i said was not their willingness. it was their capacity. and as you know, from the first time chris stevens arrived before the fall of qaddafi, he relied not on any libyan governmental security but on the february 17th brigade. we supplemented that after qaddafi's fall with ds agents, with private

security contractors. so, there was no effect on anything from the libyan government that was related to that. however, we do think that need to be looked at going forward. the arb made a very important point. that the so-called temporary nature of the mission did prove to be confusing to people down the chain, responsible for reading those cables. we get about, i don't know, how many millions of cables do we get. i have to confess i do not read all the cables that come into the state department. that's why we have a huge workforce of people who are given responsibility and expected to carry forward that responsibility. and i any think, designating it as temporary in the arb's findings did cause an extra level of uncertainty to some extent. as the chairman said at the very beginning, quoting from the arb, there has been

culture aigs in the state department, to husband resources. to try to be as careful in spending money as possible. i think adding to that the fact that it was, quote, temporary, probably did lead to some of the confusion we later say played out in the cables but not the status of it for the libyan government. >> how common is it for us to rely on local, nongovernmental security as was the case with the blue mountain and february 17 brigades in benghazi? >> well it is very common. we employ privately employ security guards in a very high number of our posts around the world. i mean if you go to the embassy in baghdad or go to the embassy in kabul or really many of our high threat places you will see private security guards. now, because of problems with private security guard

contracts that came to light in iraq where as you remember there were a lot of difficulties. these were private security guards who were protecting diplomats and development experts, other civilians. many countries have put very stringent requirements on private security guard. and in fact in libya the transitional government prohibited private security guards which is why there is this -- unless they approved them. they approved the blue mountain company that was a joint libyan, british, organization but we use private security guards in many places because as i said, historically marine guards do not protect personnel. their job is, you know, to really take care of classified material and to destroy it if necessary. we had no classified material at benghazi. and it was unfortunate that we evacuated all the americans and unclassified

material was left behind but we had no classified material. so there's, there is going to be an effort, because of this work that i have directed, to really sort this out so that you know that everybody knows, exactly what the protocols and rules are, and we act accordingly. >> thank you, madam secretary. mr. chair. >> thank you. madam secretary, thank you for your thorough, thoughtful and forthright answers. it is what we have become accustomed to from you. i understand we'll be able to welcome you one more time when you come tomorrow to be part of introducing senator kerry to the committee. so we look forward to welcome you t well. i think there are several takeways here that are incredibly important. one is, is that we have to look at the totality of the threat environment versus just looking for a specific credible threat when we are thinking about the

protection of our foreign service personnel. and i see that we are moving in that direction. the other one is the changes in the department have clear lines of authority and responsibility for security matters. instead of silos, looking more at a horizontal nature. i understand that is underway. a lot has been said about resources here. secretary gates used to famously argue that there are more people in military bands than in the entire foreign service. it seems to me that surely we can find the funds to protect our diplomats who serve on the front lines. and i am concerned when the arb says that the state department has been engaged for years in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work and that has conditioned the thinking of some in the state department that it is imperative for the state department to be mission-driven rather than

resource-constrained, particularly in increasingly risky parts of the world. so i look forward to immediately working with the ranking member in reaching out for chairman royce to get that transfer authority within the existing budget. it is not about additional money. it is about taking money that has already been appropriated so you have the ability to start working in the next secretary has the ability to start working to protect our people as robustly as we can. and failure to do so i think is going to be a for judgment on this congress that we can't get you at minimum that transfer authority. and finally, i know a lot has been made about the question of, what was said and what was not said and, i simply think about that in the context that there are lessons to be learned there as well. in our drive to produce information about a, a tragedy, an incident, we

want to be able to get information as quickly as possible as we should. but i think what we know and what we don't know is equally as important. and maybe the admonition that we should know before we speak is incredibly important. that would have been incredibly important when we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and as someone who voted against the iraq war in the house and didn't believe based on upon what i was able to review, there wasn't such information and we look at tragedies and sternly benghazi was a tragedy. when we lost 4486 american lives in iraq, and thousands who have been injured and changed their lives forever, and increased the influence of iran, i think from my own personal perspective that was truly a tragedy. and so there are lessons to be learned here. there will be questions for the committee to be able to ask for the record, for the close of business tomorrow since we don't expect you to be too much longer in your position.

and with the thanks of the committee for your appearance here today and your service. and senator corker, final word. >> i want to actually add three more takeways. i know they're not only based on testimony here today but conversations we've had over the last several days. you alluded to over the transom issues at the state department and the white house deal with on a constant basis. think think committee will be useful, and can be useful in setting a long terms explanation of what our national interest is and look at this over a longer context. you alluded to that in your testimony. secondly, i know we talked extensively about the importance of having full authorization. that that actually would be very helpful to people like you come in for a very short period of time, for us to help set those priorities. that could would be something you would embrace and something this committee has never done since i've been here. and thirdly, that we live in a world now where we know that al qaeda is going to be a threat and in north africa

for years to come and we need to have policies that realize that and address it. i too thank you for your service. i know not nice things will be said again tomorrow when we come here but thank you so much. >> on that bipartisan note and with thanks of the committee, the committee is adjourned. >> two hours 30 minutes on the clock for secretary clinton. the first of two hears clearly the highlights of what was possible on target, ron johnson, rand paul and john mccain for questions and statements they made. >> he choked up at times. she was heated at times in her exchange with ron johnson hillary clinton has done what everybody waited for quite some poert and that was testify on benghazi. bill: that was round one. round two is at.

here is jon scott and jenna lee on "happening now." we'll see you tomorrow bill: bill got the team half right. deadly attack on consulate in benghazi libya. i'm jon scott. >> i'm not jenna lee. i'm heather childers heather: lawmakers grilling her on the september 11th raid that left our ambassador chris stevens and three other americans dead. after an independent review blasted the state department, and the steps the obama administration is taking to beef up security at u.s. facilities worldwide. >> as i have said many times,

i take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to leave the state department and our country safer, stronger and more secure. heather: doug mckelway is live for us on capitol hill with the very latest. doug, we're learning new details seems moment by moment. what can you tell us? >> reporter: well, most recent thing, senator rand paul absolutely skewering the secretary of state moments ago calling the attack on benghazi the worst since 9/11. he said he would have removed the secretary of state from her post because of that. among other new revelations she was asked directly if she was made aware of requests by ambassador stevens and others for heightened security in benghazi in light of 30 previous security threats and two specific attacks? here was her response. >> first, let's start on the night of september 11th itself and those difficult early days. i directed our response from the state department, stayed in close contact with officials from across our

government and the libyan government. so i saw first-hand what ambassador pickering and former chairman mullen called, timely and exceptional coordination. no delays in decision-making. no denials of support from washington or from our military. >> reporter: she described in great detail what she was doing the day of the attack. she said she was at the state department today, closely monitoring the situation in cairo, egypt, where protesters were scaling the fence of the u.s. embassy there. in that same time frame of other protests against u.s. installations across the area. she said she had a call to national security advisor tom donilon at the white house. later that evening she spoke with the president of the united states. she said there was no decision to withold the support to besieged staffers. here she is again. >> i do feel responsible. i feel responsible for the nearly 70,000 people who work for the state department. i take it very seriously. but the specific security

requests pertaining to benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. i didn't see those requests. they didn't come to me. i didn't approve them. i didn't deny them. that's obviously one of the findings that ambassador pickering and admiral mullen made at that, you know, these requests don't ordinarily come to the secretary of state. >> reporter: asked if it was she who made the decision to send u.n. ambassador susan rice onto the sunday talk shows in the aftermath of the attacks. she said she did not make that decision, heather. heather: doug, we watched the testimony today. secretary clinton, she was, you could say, quite testy at times. what's is the response to that. >> reporter: testy, emotional. at one point she got a little tearful talking about making calls to the family. at one point she got testy with senator ron johnson in wisconsin, why didn't she phone survivors to ask what the origin of this protest was. here is our response. >> with all due respect the fact is we had four dead americans.

>> i understand. >> whether it was protest or guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some americans, what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. >> reporter: and we can expect most of those kinds of exchanges when we testifies before the house foreign affairs committee at 2:00 p.m. heather: a little more than testy. doug mckelway, reporting live for us. thank you, doug. jon: joining us now to talk a little more about this, the former u.s. ambassador to the united nations john bolton. he is also a fox news contributor. we heard some questions about of the secretary of state, am boos door, bolton. is there one you would have asked that did not get asked? >> unfortunately the nature of congressional hearings it is not a question and answer so much as it is a statement and counter statement. although i do think some important questions were asked and i think the most important was that secretary

clinton admitted that she was unaware of the request for enhanced security from embassy tripoli. i think that is very significant and i think reflect as real failure of leadership on her part. i would have liked to have seen follow-up give the denial of security enhancements, i think flowed from her policy, the administration policy, to have a light footprint, to move toward normalcy in our relationship with the government of libya. that wasn'tly obviously up to fit. we had a heavier security footprint it would be acknowledgement that the overthrow of qaddafi was not being followed by a movement to representative government. that is very important point. in consideration what happened after september 11th, the one question i didn't hear asked that i think most americans want to know, secretary clinton, why didn't you appare on those talk shows on sunday? she did say she didn't pick ambassador rice. i think we all knew that.

i think we knew it was the white house. secretary clinton didn't get involved in the talking points. no surprise there either. why didn't she appear? it was her responsibility for the people in benghazi and yet she was absent for a long time. jon: you have said, you have written actually, that the administration had an utterly wrong-headed position of its middle east successes. what do you mean by that? >> well, i think they believe that the overthrow of qaddafi was one of the great successes of their foreign policy. this was the origin of the phrase, leading from behind in the overthrow of qaddafi, yet obviously you have to judge a policy by its aftermath as well as people have criticized the bush administration for what happened in iraq after the overthrow of saddam hussein. libya was not just another embassy. it was not iceland.

it wasn't france. it was a very dangerous place, and the fact that the administration would tout libya as a success, even as our ambassador in libya was describing the descent into kay yos that the -- chaos the country was seeing. the growth of terrorist cells and training camps, nothing was being done to affect security but nothing was being done to recognize the failure and the risk to american interests more broadly being reflected by the chaos growing in libya. jon: the administration asserted that the deaths of our ambassador and others resulted from this protest over the online video. the secretary was asked about that today and she got pretty angry, said what does it matter why this thing started. your thoughts on that. what does it matter? >> well, i think that answer, which was obviously emotional and testy, shows that senator johnson hit a

real sore spot. it does matter. it mattered the day of the attack itself. because if we didn't understand what the cause of the attack in libya was, we might not be able to defend american embassies throughout the region and other embasys -- were attacked. the possibility, the likelihood, this was a real terrorist attack is something we should have been focused on and i absolutely do not buy secretary clinton's argument and the arguement others made it was the fog of war that made it difficult to find out what was going on. that we had to get more intelligence. i think as senator mccain and others pointed out, all you had to do was talk to the diplomatic security people who were defending the consulate in benghazi that day. they knew what was happening. we didn't need our intelligence agencies help. the state department itself knew and secretary clinton's failure to find out quickly and her failure to acknowledge even today how

important that is, i think is a real problem for the administration. jon: more testimony from her coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern in front of the house. secretary bolton, ambassador bolton, thanks very much for being with us. >> thank you. heather: meantime we continue to follow this. the secretary of state taking questions from lawmakers on the terror attack in benghazi that killed four americans. coming up we'll talk with one of the lawmakers who questioned secretary clinton just moments ago. he is on the foreign relations committee. we'll get his reaction up next.

jon: right now new reaction to secretary of state hillary clinton testimony about the benghazi attack before the senate foreign relations committee this morning. the secretary taking questions on the terror attack that killed four americans at consulate including ourlibya. we're joined now by one of the members of that committee, one of the people asking the questions,

senator john barrasso of wyoming. senator, good to have you here. >> thanks for having me, jon. jon: you asked about the security situation at the consulate and whether or not the secretary was satisfied with the arrangements that were made. are you satisfied with the answer? >> no, i'm not. because sound to me like they believe that security was adequate, at least that's what they told the american people. but they should have known in advance that the security was inadequate. there had been an attacks in benghazi against the british ambassador, against the red cross and including our own consulate. so the story that they were this telling the american people right after the attacks is very different than what we now know to be the case. i think the secretary was well-prepared. she gave the answers that she chose to give but let's face it. i asked additional questions about al qaeda and the president just two weeks before the election had said that al qaeda had been

decimated. jon: right. >> we know in fact al qaeda has been on the rise, not on the run. jon: and she seemed to back away from her boss, you know, president obama's statements about whether or not al qaeda has been decimated? >> she kind of put the little qualifier in there well, she said core al qaeda, referencing usama bin laden and what had been happening in afghanistan. i mean those are the real concerns. and my concern is still no one has been brought to justice. not the terrorists who did this. nor really adequately people within the state department who have been moved from one post to another, but really haven't been forced to pay the price by losing their own jobs as a result of the mistakes that were made that resulted in this. so those are the concerns and questions that continue and they're going to continue in the questioning of secretary kerry in his hearings tomorrow. jon: yeah. it does seem strange that this pretty scathing review

board report came out and yet, nobody really has been disciplined in much of a sense over all of this that's happened including the death of our first ambassador in more than 30 years? >> well, that's exactly right. in spite of the president's promise that he would bring to justice those that did that, we haven't seen justice overseas with the terrorists. we haven't seen justice at home with those in the state department. and overseas you look at what has just happened now with al qaeda connected groups in northern africa. i wonder, are they just emboldened because no one, no terrorist, was actually had to pay the price for the terrorist attacks and the murder of our four brave americans in benghazi. jon: senator, if you would be good enough to stay with us over a break, there is another exchange of you with the secretary that i would like to play for our viewers and again amplify your thoughts on that. if you would be good good enough to stay with us we'll

be right back. >> absolutely. thanks, jon >> we asked a question where senator risch talked about where people perpetrated the recent attacks in algeria, were they part of this or were they made perhaps emboldened because no one has yet paid a penalty for the attack on our facility in benghazi and how can we make sure people are actually brought to justice there? jill would have been

alerted as soon as they noticed an attack in their network, before it was too late. and lifelock's bank account takeover alerts would have notified amanda in time to help protect her money. lifelock guards your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one protects you better than lifelock. and lifelock stands behind that, with the power of their

$1 million service guarantee. you have so much to protect, and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and try 60 days of identity theft protection risk-free. 60 days risk-free! use promo code: onguard. order now, and get this document shredder, a $29 value, free! call or go online now. [♪...] jon: continuing now with our interview with senator john barrasso of wyoming, a member of foreign relations committee and one of those who questioned secretary of state hillary clinton this morning. in the question we played before we went to the commercial break you spoke about the attack in algeria, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of hostages, americans among them. your question seemed to

suggest you feel that is related to our response or lack thereof in libya. is it? >> i believe it is but that is it still being question. we have no one currently in custody as a result of the attacks in libya. there is no one held accountable in terms of terrorists. we know in benghazi that was close to al qaeda linked terrorist training center. it was a hotbed for al qaeda related activities. now we see this whole area of northern africa, where you have a additional al qaeda linked activities, and, it just makes me concerned that these folks may feel emboldened, embold owned because of the lack of the response by the administration to actually bring them to justice. when i asked secretary clinton that question. she said the president has promised and take the president at his word, well, i don't necessarily take the president at his word. we need to make sure as americans that these people are brought to justice. we need to hold, hold our elected officials and

specifically this administration accountable. jon: so more than four months out from the benghazi attack you're not confident that anyone will be brought it justice? >> no. i am not. and i wasn't, i don't feel anymore reassured after talking to the secretary of state this morning. jon: wyoming senator john barosso. a republican. thank you. >> thank you, jon. jon: we will have continuing coverage of the senate hearings which transfer over to the house later this afternoon on what happened in benghazi. secretary of state clinton will testify in front of a house committee a little more than two hours from now. back in a moment with more more "happening now"

eufrpblgtsz rick folbaum in the control courtroom getting ready for a brand-new hour, including round 2 of hillary clinton khreupb's testimony. we watched th testimony. brutal cold weather smacking a large chunk -frp the country. snow is in the forecast as well. how much and when can we expect things to warm up a little bit. we have the forecast for you. we know the important role that drones have played on battle fields. wait until you hear what the little drones are capable of doing. a preview of the future of aerial robotics technology. all of that and breaking news as the second hour of "happening now" starts right now. heather: fireworks on capitol hill more than four months after the deadly terror attack on our consulate in benghazi. secretary of state hillary clinton finally testifying about the security failures which left four americans dead, including

u.s. ambassador chris stevens. welcome to an all new hour of "happening now," i am heather childress in for jennifer lee. jon: i'm jon scott. she is taking full responsibility for the mistakes leading up to the deadly attack on benghazi. she started off with focusing recent efforts. she became emotional when she called standing next to president obama as the marinas carried four caskets off the plane at andrews air force base. as for initial claims about the nature of the attack secretary clinton said there was no attempt to mislead the public khrurg a heated exchange with senator ron kwropbs son. >> we have no doubt that they were militants, they aeu taubgsd, they killed our people, but what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing. >> we were misled that there was

protests and an assault strang out of that. and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact and the american people could have known that within days and they didn't know that. >> for all due respect, we had four dead americans, was it because of a protest, or because guys were out for a walk and thought they would go kill them. what difference does it phaeufpblgt we need to figure out why it happened and prevent it from every happening again. jon: else has secretary clinton be saying, mike? >> reporter: as you mentioned secretary clinton has been even tpa i sizin emphasizing the work she's been doing since 9/11 to protect our embassies and consulates around the world and people who are stationed around the world in difficult spots. she was monitoring the situation

on the streets of cairo earlier in the day. the bottom line, secretary clinton says she was not in denial about what was happening. >> the very next morning i told the american people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compound, and i vowed to bring them to justice. and i stood with president obama in the rose garden as he spoke of an act of terror. >> so she's making the point that she knew it was terrorism pretty early on. she is now done with the senate panel but she is not done with questioning. there are a bunch of house members who want to ask questions about what happened in benghazi on 9/11, jon. jon: we already played that exchange with senator johnson. any other fireworks so stphar. >> that is thfar? >> reporter: that is the one that clearly got under her skin. john mccain from arizona clearly got under her skeufpblt e skin. he was not satisfied with the

answers that he was getting. then questions from ron paul. >> you accept the culpability of the worst tragedy since 9/11. and i really mean that. had i than president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, and from ambassador stev stevens i would have relieved you from their post. >> reporter: that seemed to not get under her skin. this is the last function that secretary clinton will be doing as a top diplomat. the testimony is not done, the house is up next. jon. jon: we'll be watching that too. mike emanuel on capitol hill. heather: our next guest will be questioning secretary clinton later today when she appears before the house foreign foreign committee. she is the committee's former chairwoman from florida. before we get to what you plan

to ask the secretary later today i want to take a look at her response today when questioned about the administration's response immediately following the attack, and then i want to also take a look at her response on september 14th. listen. >> i was pretty occupied about keeping our people safe, doing what needed to be done in the follow-up to benghazi. i really don't think anybody in the administration was really focused on that so much as trying to figure out, you know, what we should be doing. and, you know, i wasn't involved in the talking points process. you've seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that because it is senseless. and it is totally unacceptable.

heather: sounded a lot like the talking points, don't you think? and with you are satisfied with ation's response?y in regards to >> well i'm very dissatisfied with the way that the presentation has been going, because the american people deserve answers and we still are no closer to the truth. what happened in that prolonged terrorist attack, we're talking about over seven hours of a firefight, where if she knew exactly what was going on where was the order to go help them, even send a flight overhead so that the terrorists could see that there is a u.s. response. there was no response. who decided to not respond at all? also, you know, this arb, which is the review of the benghazi attack never interviewed secretary clinton. how could this review be considered thorough when the person at the top was never interviewed. what kind of an investigation is that? and this video narrative is

still a great puzzle for all of us. time and time again, even the president, the secretary clinton, ambassador rice kept talking about the video, and now they are distancing themselves from the video as if that narrative never happened. cox on you take responsibility and then at the same time she walks back from the responsibility. heather: she didn't even close the door on it completely today listening to all the testimony so far she said, even today there are questions being raised as to what was being done and why they were doing it. so my next question to you has to do with request for additional said and security there in benghazi. she said that there was no denial in requesting additional security and that there was no delay in decision making. take a look at this. these are the publicly broadcast incidents, publicly reported incidents. we have a list of them that had happened in the area. those unreported at this timeframe we don't have, but look at this report, between may 22nd and june 18th, we

reported right here on fox news four specifically, but still we did nothing, then we hear from secretary clinton today saying that she didn't see the requests, basically hanged off the responsibility. what's your thought on that? >> incredible. it stretches the credibility of the american public to think that she could once again say, i'm responsible, and yet say i never saw any cables requesting additional security. that never came through my desk. had i known that we would have given them added security. i mean it's just incredible in the literal sense of the word, meaning not credible. also, what is not credible is that the state department had given information leading the public to believe that heads rolled at the state department because of mismanagement on this mentio benghazi-terrorist attack. no one has lost their charge. they shift evidence the chairs,

and people think, oh, boy, accountability really took place in the state department. heather: i know that's what you pwhrap plan to ask her when you get a chance later on this afternoon. >> absolutely. heather: thank you. we appreciate your input. >> thank you. jon: fox news alert as many of dealing with a deep freeze right now. minnesota seeing some of the coldest temperatures in the country. at fern lake temperatures dropped to 35 degrees below zero today. on monday in barris minnesota it registered 36 below. heather: in michigan it's snow causing difficult conditions on the road. the temperatures there are so cold, jon that the salt that they usually use is failing to melt the ice on the highways, that's how cold. the lake-effect-snow already dropping as much as ten inches in some parts of michigan with more on the way. jon: t-rl lee we are forcing one

of our correspondents to stand out in that bitter cold in the midwest. steve brown is in chicago sieve srering w shivering we presume. he has a hat on. it takes it tough to do almost anything in that weather, doesn't it steve in. >> it sure does. yesterday there was several communicates from koch chester to minnesota that shaw a high. still below zero, that is the first time it happened twins 2007. here in chicago it was a real tough fight for the friday fire department last night in a warehouse fire down on the south side of the city in a bridgeport neighborhood. it was so difficult for the 200 firefighters that they had to bring in city business as warming stations, so that the firefighters could get some place where they could get warm for a little while. you can imagine what kind of a mess there is the day after with all that water flowing into the streets, a lot of sand trucks being put out there, a very difficult situation made a lot more tough because of the

temperatures, the low temperatures, and they are expected to extend through this week in the upper midwest. jon, heather, back to you. jon: all right. steve brown, shivering in chicago. thank you, steve. heather: here in new york city also dealing with bone-chilling temperatures. meteorologist janice dean is braving the frigid cold. look at that. all right, janice that is a a smart way to dress in this weather. >> fashion goes out the window when it's this cold, heather you know that. this is why i'm dressed like this with my parka, me and my mark ka doing the weather. here in new york city 16, with the windchill it feels colder than that. a lot of new yorkers not dressed appropriately. i'm sure we'll show you pictures of that later on. let's take a look at the temperatures, where steve brown is in some cases we are dealing with windchills that feel like the single digits below freezing. are we going to get to my temperature map, or do you just want to look at me in the parka.

minus 8 international falls. 16 in new york. there is your windchill what it feels like if you're not protect wed a parka outside. 2 in new york, zero in detroit. fine us 3 in international falls. this will continue through the work week into the weekend. the temperatures will moderate a little bit but it's still going to be cold. it will be cold as we head into network. we are into winter before. 20 to 50 below in the warning areas in purple. a quick look at some of the snow we are getting across the great lakes. there is a look at your temperatures and we are getting that snow across the great lakes because the lakes have not frozen over w. you get that cold arctic air piling up feet upon feet upon feet of snow. i don't mind being out here. i actually like this cold weather, as long as you're dressed appropriately it's fine. heather: i was going to say your parka is awesome. but you should stay inside there

are health concerns. jon: weather no problem when you have a hood like that on. house republicans could soon pass a bill that extends america's debt ceiling but it has a big catch. what it is and why it could take a bite out of lawmakers' wallets. golf star phil michelson says higher taxes might force him to move out of the golden state. where he could land and why he's hardly alone. [ male announcer ] in blind taste tests, even ragu users chose prego. prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonderhat other questionable choices i've made? [ club scene music ] [ sigh of relief ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly

to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes.

to volunteer to help those in need. when a twinge of back pain surprises him. morning starts in high spirits, but there's a growing pain in his lower back. as lin grow longer, his pain continues to linger. but after a long day of helping others, he gets some helpful advice. just two aleve have the strength to keep back pain away all day. today, jason chose aleve. just two pills for all day pain relief. try aleve d for strong, all day long sinus and headache relief. jon: house republicans set to vote on raising the debt limit for several months but with a catch this appears to be a slap at the democratically controlled senate. today's bill would withhold pay for either house or senate members if one body or the other fails to pass a budget. a budget, you know, that is

something the senate actually hasn't passed in four years. >> the democrats in the senate i think are now going to have to respond and actually put together a budget. you can do it, by the way, with 51 votes, you don't need 60 votes. they've got 55. they've got plenty of democrat toss do it, i hope they work with us and make it bipartisan. you have to have a budget, it's the framework to get the debt under control. jon: charlie hurt is with the washington times and is our guest now. the house seems to have made something move. you hear chuck schumer on the sunday show saying oh, yeah, we're going to do a budget. all of a should the glacial activity in the senate is sliding, it's moving. >> what the house republicans managed to do is sort of shame the senate democrats into action, and it was funny watching chuck schumer talk about it. he almost talked like, oh, they

were manning on doing this anyway, which to me suggests that at least finally they were somewhat embarrassed about the fact that as you say they have not passed a pwupbl net fou budget in four years. i can't think of anything that is more basic or fundamental that the whole congress must do every single year if you want fiscal sanity. jon: they are legally required to do so under the constitution. >> that's just a technicality, come on, jon. jon: in you don't have a budget if you spend way beyond it nobody notices it because there is no benchmark, right? >> it's absolute insanity. no household would operate like that. if a company were to do this it would go out of business immediately. such is the situation when you run an operation that is based on people forcibly handing over money, so it's not like they have to make smart business

decisions or else they'll lose their customers. this money comes in from us whether they do their job or not, which is part of i think the problem. jon: all right. i wanted to ask you too about the inaugural address that the president gave. you were less than impressed according to your column. >> yeah, you know it was amazing. my house is right on the route where people were being dropped off buses, and a lot of people walked. thousands of people were walking by the house on the morning of the inauguration. it was a warm, unifying thing to say, there were "little children" and old people there, and they were clearly thrilled. and it was a very unifying, nice way to cleanse yourself of all the past sort of ranker of the campaign, and then to listen to the speech that president obama gave, i thought it was petty, partisan, it was very small

ball. it was deflating and it really took away that very optimistic, unifying feeling that the day started off with. and he could have taken it to a whole higher level of that if he had wanted to, but instead he wanted to play politics with the class warfare type stuff, and he even brought up his gun control legislation, as if that was -- he called it some sort of new, modern civil rights movement, which is kind of ridiculous. it really left a poor taste i think in a lot of people's mouths. jon: charlie hurt from the washington times. it's good to have you on. thank you, char here. >> thanks, jon. heather: coming up next secretary of state hillary clinton facing tough questions about the terror attack in benge, libya. but what more did we learn about the administration's response to the murder of ambassador christopher stevens and three other americans? we'll take a look. and golf star phil michelson

says taxes in california, well they are so high he may have to leave. he's not a loan, though, thousands of californians are facing the possibility of losing mor more than half their income to the tax man. we'll take a look at why. (announcer) at scottrade, our clients trade and invest exactly how they want. with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everi'm with scottrade. me. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine. hi, i'm ensure clear... clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've gotine grams of protein. that's three times more than me!

[ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. but, dad, you've got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands? to compete on the global stage. what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university, we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone is ready with the know-how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪

jeunesse is live with more on the developing story. >> reporter: michelson isn't the only millionaire in california -rpbg, we have 35,000 of them. i've talked to several and they too either have or want to relocate without expect of a legal challenge and harassment from the state which hopes to rake in an extra 5 to $7 billion a year by charging the 1% 13% in income taxes. >> if you have excessive regulations and excessive tax that's just not where you want

to be. >> reporter: from puerto rico san diego to san francisco wealthy californians are bailing out. >> we've had a ten-fold increase fro of calls from california where many are seeking a way to leave the state. >> reporter: some already have. >> it never stops. pay a little more this way. pay another business tax here. there is no end so we decided end it. >> reporter: after california voters raised taxes on the rich. the top earners mad earners paid 5% more for the feds, 7 more for the state. this tax consultant is thinking of moving out of california. he has clients studying a similar move. >> as soon as prop 30 happened i

saw a huge change in the mindset. it's almost as if, well that's -- that pushes it to the limit i guess. they are fed up with the situation and they feel it like they are being unfairly created. >> reporter: these charts show you why. the top 5% of california taxpayers, those over $250,000 pay 62% of state income taxes. the top 2% pay 46%. while just 34,000 taxpayers out of 14 million pay 25% of state taxes. i talked to a lot of these guys, they don't want to go on camera number one they are not dumb, number two they have experts studying where to go and how to do it. others, because their income is from capital investments they are going to leave. you have to sell all your properties here and stay out of state nine most a year. there is a group of san diego who get together and assign each one a state or country and develop a checklist on the best

place to go. two that i talked to are saving $300,000 a year in taxes by moving one state away. heather: i want to know what tops their list of the best places to go. >> reporter: number one no income taxes. washington state, nevada, arizona is about half of what california is. texas, obvious leave. florida is a longer way away. some of these guys have ties in some of these neighboring states, their businesses are here but they ship into california but it's very easy for them, but then again, you know, you've got grand kid, you've god kids. you've got to weigh what is going to work for you. but i'd say move to costa rica, they've looked at new zealand, singapore. these are not dumb people. when they are worth 5 to $10 million,. heather: they sound like they are serious about it. jon: i'm sure the hollywood types will stay and pay their fair share.

coming up a look at how hillary clinton's testimony lines up with the official timeline. plus, new video of the terror attack in algeria and questions about possible links to al-qaida.

heather: today's testimony by secretary of state hillary clinton shedding new light on the terror attack in benghazi. addressing the questions about what the administration knew

immediately afterward, and how they reacted. >> if i wish to fault the administration it is that we didn't have a clear picture and we probably didn't do as clear a job explaining that we did not have a clear picture until days later creating what i think are legitimate questions. heather: senior white house foreign affairs correspondent wendell goler is live at the white house with the very latest. wendell? >> reporter: heather, secretary clinton says in hindsight it might have made sense for administration officials to say less immediately after the attack but nothing she said in her testimony today contradicts anything she or the president said in the past. still republicans think the president's lone reference to a terror attack a day after the benghazi tragedy was perhaps purposely overshadowed by other suggestions by him and other administration officials that the attack grew out of a protest of an anti-islam film. tennessee republican senator bob corker sharply

criticized the briefing a week and a half after the benghazi attack. >> it was a bizarre briefing at best. it happened in the middle of a political campaign and obviously there was a lot of spin from the white house and, a lot of comments made on both sides of the aisle which heightened a lot of the focus on benghazi. i think it also represented a schrer rotic department that many ways made decisions based on what weren't best for those in the field. >> reporter: secretary clinton said ambassador chris stevens had stayed in a hotel in benghazi and an attack in the parking lot led officials to believe the consulate was a better alternative. she said requests for additional security didn't come to her. they were handled by security professionals. but remember those requests for the embassy in trip polely, not the benghazi consulate. secretary clinton said the attack happened as they faced violent protests

across the region and wasn't the only attack we suffered in the past few decades. >> any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact. since 1988 there have been 19 accountability review boards investigating attacks on american diplomats and their facilities. benghazi joins a long list of tragedies for our department, for other agencies. >> reporter: mrs. clinton mentioned the seizure of the u.s. embassy in iran in 1979, the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon in 1983 and the bombing of u.s. embassies in east africa in 1998. she shade there are 20 u.s. posts in high-risk environments right now of the heather. heather: wendell goler live from the white house. thank you, wendell. jon: earlier congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen of florida shared some of her lingering concerns about the terrorist attack in benghazi. she will get a chance to question secretary clinton later today when she appears before the house foreign

affairs committee. for now the florida congresswoman says she was not satisfied with the secretary clinton's testimony before the senate. >> the american people deserve answers and we still are no closer to the truth. what happened in that pro-longed terrorist attack? we're talking about over seven hours of a firefight where if she knew exactly what was going on, where was the order to go help them? even send a flight overhe had so that the terrorists could see there is a u.s. response? there was no response. who decided to not respond at all? jon: fair and balanced talk to maryland senator ben cardin, a democrat on the foreign relations committee. he had a chance to question secretary clinton this morning. senator cardin, you're overall assessment of her testimony? have your questions is been answered? >> i think secretary clinton provided the information to the committee. i think the way she responded to this tragedy is what we wanted to see from our leadership. i think the manner in which she explained that north

africa is a dangerous place. it's a, it's an area in transition. there are a lot of weapons there. there are a lot of terrorist groups there and it's a dangerous spot and we need to be there and there is inherent risks us being there. can we do a better job? we must you about there are risks. jon: ambassador, former ambassador john bolton was on earlier he said essentially in his view the administration wanted to point to libya as one of their success stories. qaddafi was out. we were instrumental helping overthrow him and they didn't want the american people to thinking that libya was still a troublesome place and that may have been part of the reason behind all of this confusion. your thoughts on that? >> i think the secretary was very clear about that. she said libya, their intentions are good. they want to do the right thing. they want to help us. their capacity is questionable and they need help. they need help in developing security forces. they need help in developing a government institutions

but they're not there yet. they certainly want to be a government that can take care of its own people in the right way but they don't have the capacity. jon: a couple of "fox news poll" questions i wanted to get to with you. when asked whether the obama administration covered up what happened in benghazi, 48% of those responding said they believe, yes, there has been a cover-up. and then another question, when asked whether president obama should have ordered troops to benghazi to help the americans at the consulate, 65% of americans said yes. what do you say to those folks who think that should have been the case? >> well, first this has been the most transparent investigation in modern times. the secretary has made all of the information available. she said herself that perhaps one of the things they would do differently, they wouldn't make as much information available as soon as they did and there wouldn't be the confusion. but the accountability review board, their report

is out there. almost all of it is available to the public. they came to the conclusion that we could not have had department of defense response in time. that the responsibility for security has to rest on the ground. and there just wasn't enough. jon: but they also said there were systemic failures going to the highest levels of the state department? >> yes. well, they did very much trace where they thought there should have been a stronger appropriation for these high-risk posts and they were very specific on the individuals involved and those people aren't there anymore. jon: you heard your fellow committee member, senator paul, suggest that had he been president, he would have asked for secretary clinton's resignation based on what happened in benghazi. your thoughts on that? >> i think secretary clinton has done an incredible job in her four years as secretary of state. she really integrated diplomacy into our national security strategy. made our world safer because they better understand america. she has done a great job.

in regards to benghazi, it was a tragedy. she assumed responsibility. took control, did, brought our people out of benghazi, out of libya for safety and then instituted an independent investigation implemented all the recommendations. i think she has done exactly what she should have done. jon: are you satisfied the perpetrators of the attack will be brought to justice. >> i absolutely want to make sure that they are and clearly that is an issue that is still pending but as you saw with the resolve, with bin laden we'll stick with it until we find the people who are responsible for the death of americans. jon: senator ben cardin, democrat of maryland. thank you. >> thank you. heather: so far one arrested and subsequently released so we'll see. >> we learned recently an autopsy showed junior seau suffered from cronic brain damage from playing years of football. we may know the precise trigger in his brain that led the nfl great to take his own life. the new research that could save lives 15.

>> plus think today's kids don't know enough about basics? a school district may drop civics lessons all together and the obama administration could be to blame.

heather: this just in. the family of junior seau filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the nfl. they're claiming that the former linebacker's suicide was a result of brain disease caused by violent hits that he sustained during his football career. seau and other suicides of high-profile nfl players putting the spotlight on concussion and traumatic brain injuries. now for the first time ever doctors say they have actually identified the trigger in the brain that led these athletes and others who suffered head injuries to take their own lives. mike tobin is live for us in chicago with more on this story. hi, mike. >> reporter: hi, heather. in the cases of nfl and military suicide linked to head injuries there has been

this marker that shows up. it is a constant. and now as you mentioned for the first time doctors can see that marker while there's a chance to do something about it. all-pro junior seau had it, cronic traumatic enseparate lopathy. caused by repeated blows to the head. a deyen tiff condition associated with memory loss, tremors, disruption of motor skills, personality changes and suicidal behavior. seau killed himself last may. an autopsy showed that seau carried the marker for cte, an abnormal of buildup of tau protein in his head. the protein could only be detected into an autopsy until now. researchers have come up with a way to detect abnormal tau protein. >> the holy grail of helping ct sufferers out propotentially suffer cte

was able to diagnose it while they are alive. >> reporter: a radio active dye injected into the patient binds with the protein. the scan shows difference between a healthy brain, a brain with some protein build up and with one with extensive damage. the dye is quickly eliminated from the body. >> opens up the possibility to us that we could learn more about them and have the chance to treat them. >> reporter: the military application is extensive. with the proliferation of roadside bombs, brain injuries became the signature wound of the last two conflicts. suicides are dramatically outpacing enemy fire as a killer of america's fighting men and women. >> having new developmental tools will enable us to move in a much faster and more efficient way toward a better understanding of this condition and of the needs of the soldiers who suffer from it. >> reporter: now the research does have critic it is the sample population was nfl players. as a result, the sample population is small. it is too soon to start talking about treatment but you can research things like

thresholds. at what point does the tau protein buildup become destructive? when does it affect behavior? when does it affect your motor skills? you can research things like protective gear, helmets that could prevent these type of injuries, heather. heather: mike tobinnings live from chicago. thank you. >> reporter: you got it. jon: secretary of state hillary clinton telling her side of the story when it comes to the deadly attack on america's consulate in benghazi, libya. she faced some tough questions from the senate foreign relations committee this morning. what can we expect when she appears before a house panel later this afternoon? also you hear a lot about drones carrying out military missions overseas but the next generation could soon revolutionize life right here in the u.s. a rare glimpse inside the latest drone technology next. >> you only need to tell one robot how to move and the other robots essentially maintain formation by just keeping a specified relative

distance. in the figure eight they come within inches of even other so they have to combat aerodynamics effects from their neighbors and have very, very precise control. all that is done autonomously. [ loud party sounds ] hi, i'm ensure clear... clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've gotine grams of protein. that's three times more than me! [ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. i'm up next, but now i'm sging the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast.

♪ oh what a relief it is! cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. music: "make someone happy" music: "make someone happy" ♪it's so important to make someone happy.♪ it's so important to make meone happy.♪ ♪make just one someone happy ♪and you will be happy too.

heather: welcome back. for the first time in history the us air force is training more pilots to fly drones than manned military planes. while they are best known for their military missions overseas, scientists are actually developing a whole new generation of drones that could apparently revolutionize our lives here at home. pbs's nova, they gained rare access to some of the people developing the new drone technology who explain how

unmanned aircraft like what you're looking at, can have some serious advantages over those with pilots on board. >> in terms of acrobat i cans i think it would be hard to beat what a robot can do. the neuromuscular system in the human body, may be delays on the order of 80 millly seconds or 200 mill seconds in response to seconds you can see. robots can do computations hundreds of times a second. so the delays are a order of a millisecond or papers perhaps even less. heather: amazing technology. we have a robotics expert and professor at the university of pennsylvania school of engineering and applied science. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. heather: the nova special makes a point pointing out this technology is just in its infancy. where is it headed? >> that's correct. it is just starting. what we're doing is creating robots very different from the remotely piloted vehicle that you see, what you read

about in the press. these are autonomous. they are small, highly maneuverable and navigate indoors in environments which you are and i am right now. so that makes them a very, very powerful tool for emergency response, for search-and-rescue and many other application. >> you said that the holy grail of this technology is to allow these, you know, to move about without gps technology? >> that's correct. so what these robots have are sensors that can actually detect features in the environment like doors, windows and they're able to localize with respect to these features. so they don't need any satellites telling them where they are. they have the cameras and the sensors that allow them to figure out where they are in the environment and reason about the environment and take actions that remotely located human operators just can not. heather: so they can sense their environment. jon, you're a pilot. what do you think about this technology? jon: i love it. it is fascinating. but what about privacy

concerns? i'm sure there are a lot of people wondering will there be a drone flying over my house or my apartment building keeping an eye on what i'm having for breakfast? >> that is very important question. as any other technology you can always use it in ways that are not intend but i have to remind you a lot and lot of people with cell phones taking pictures. the odds of you having a picture of you without your knowing about it are pretty high. we have security cameras located all over campuses. the university of pennsylvania there are cams that track you as you walk from one place to another. this is part of the world we live in. so we have to get used to some of this and other things we have to think about how we might legislate and have policies that might limit the way the data is used. >> what about the way that this data is currently benefiting, you know, people like first-responders? >> well, right now as i said before, this technology is really in a stage of infancy, but i imagine a day where the first-responders would

really be robots. imagine a gunshot going off or 911 call and before you know it, there is a swarm of these robots with cameras and microphones that have the ears and eyes on the site, providing information to humans first-responders that eventually do arrive on the spot. heather: that is amazing stuff to watch. thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate it. by the way -- >> thank you very much for inviting me. heather: catch nova's, rise of the drones, tonight. it airs 9:00 p.m. eastern on pbs. jon: i do love that. speaking of drones a toy company is making a miniature rep flick can of the kind that our military forces use. this one modeled on the rq-1 predator of course, but not everyone is a fan. how the customer review site of online company selling them became a place for critics of the drone program to unload. i have the flu... i took theraflu, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is theraflu doesn't treat your cough.

what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus severe cold and flu fights your worst flu symptoms, plus that cough. [ sighs ] thanks!... [ male annouer ] you're welcome. that's the cold truth!

♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it.